29.04.2014, 11:42, "Greg Thelen" <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Apr 28 2014, Roman Gushchin <klamm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 28.04.2014, 16:27, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@xxxxxxx>: >>> The series is based on top of the current mmotm tree. Once the series >>> gets accepted I will post a patch which will mark the soft limit as >>> deprecated with a note that it will be eventually dropped. Let me know >>> if you would prefer to have such a patch a part of the series. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> Looks good to me. >> >> The only question is: are there any ideas how the hierarchy support >> will be used in this case in practice? >> Will someone set low limit for non-leaf cgroups? Why? >> >> Thanks, >> Roman > > I imagine that a hosting service may want to give X MB to a top level > memcg (/a) with sub-jobs (/a/b, /a/c) which may(not) have their own > low-limits. > > Examples: > > case_1) only set low limit on /a. /a/b and /a/c may overcommit /a's > memory (b.limit_in_bytes + c.limit_in_bytes > a.limit_in_bytes). > > case_2) low limits on all memcg. But not overcommitting low_limits > (b.low_limit_in_in_bytes + c.low_limit_in_in_bytes <= > a.low_limit_in_in_bytes). Thanks! With use_hierarchy turned on it looks perfectly usable. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>